Republic of the Philippines

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF MANILA
MANILA CITY
BRANCH 1

ROSALINDA A. ARIAS,
Plaintiff,
Civil Case No.:
M-MNL-22-05865-SC
- versus - For: Ejectment Case (Unlawful
Detainer)

SPOUSES FLORENCIO MAQUIDDANG,

and ANA MARIA MAQUIDDANG,
RIC FELICIANO,
MILDRED BAYLOSIS,
SPOUSES ROLINDO CAINDAY and
JOSEPHINE CAINDAY,
SPOUSES MARCELITO ESGUERRA and
CELY ESGUERRA, and
SPOUSES GLORIA OLITRES and
TIAGO OLITRES,
Defendant.
x-----------------------------------------x

ANSWER

THE DEFENDANTS, SPOUSES FLORENCIO MAQUIDDANG and

ANA MARIA MAQUIDDANG, by themselves, in the above entitled case,
and unto this Honourable Court, most respectfully avers:

TIMELINESS

1. That they received a copy of the summons issued by the

Honourable Court dated 30 August 2022 on 30 September 2022
DIRECTING them to file their ANSWER within a period of thirty
(30) days from receipt of the said summons.
 ADMISSIONS AND SPECIFIC DENIALS

2. That they ADMITS the contents of Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the

Complaint;

3. That defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient

to form a belief as to the veracity of the averments in
Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Complaint;

4. That they ADMITS the contents of Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7.1 only

insofar as the duration of their stay in the subject property,
kindness of Plaintiff’s Father, Contract of Lease with Jose T. Abad
and paying of monthly rentals are concerned;

5. That they DENIES that they illegally occupy the subject property
cited in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint;

6. That they DENIES the allegation of the Plaintiff that she verbally
notified the defendants that she will use the subject property
and that defendants will be asked to vacate the same cited in
Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Complaint;

7. That they DENIES the allegation of the Plaintiff that she waived
the unpaid rentals of the defendants and that she formally
advised defendants that she needed the property and that they
should vacate the same cited in Paragraphs 11 and 12 of the
Complaint;

8. That they DENIES the allegation that they have received a

formal demand letter for them to immediately vacate said
property cited in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint;

9. That they ADMITS the allegation of the Plaintiff that Defendants

participated in the conciliation proceedings before the Barangay
Court cited in Paragraph 14 and 15 of the Complaint;
10. That Paragraph 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the
Complaint is DENIED for lack of knowledge and information
sufficient to form a belief as to the veracity or falsity of the
alleged Final Notices of Demand. The said Paragraph is likewise
denied insofar as it alleges that the Defendant is refusing to
vacate the said property thus constraining the Plaintiff to engage
the services of a counsel, the truth being those alleged in the
defenses part hereinbelow.

THE DEFENSE

11. The subject property in the name of Plaintiff has been

leased to the herein Defendants and they were religiously paying
for the monthly rentals of the same, as in fact, they have written
in Filipino the following;

“Kami ay nagsimulang umupa mula noong

taong 1994 hanggang sa kasalukuyang taon. Ang
unang nagpapaupa sa amin ay ang kanyang ama na
si Ginoong Jose T. Abad kami po ay nakakapagbayad
sa sapat na buwanang upa at sa katunayang kami na
rin ang nagpapagawa ng anumang nasisira sa
nasabing upahan halimbawa na lang ng bubong,
sahig at iba pang sira ng aming inuupahan at kami
na rin ang nagpalagay ng linya ng tubig at kami rin
ang gumawa ng paraan upang kami ay magkaroon
ng ilaw,”

12. That when plaintiff took over the management of the said
property the rules and regulation was maintained, the Defendants
shouldered the expenses on the maintenance of the property and
were always updated in the payments of their monthly rentals
even though the plaintiff was not issuing official receipts and only
write their payments in an index card;
13. That Defendants avers in Filipino, the following:

“Kami po ay may kasamang Senior Citizen at PWD sa

aming inuupahang bahay. Kami naman po ay hindi lumalabag sa
batas sapagkat alam namin ang karapatan ni Gng. Arias sa
kanyang nasabing paupahan, Nais lang po naming maging
makatao siya sa amin sa dahilang gusto niya kaming paalisin
agad-agad. Si Gng. Arias ay nag-“offer” ng halagang
Php20,000.00 sa bawat isa sa amin, subalit ang gusto niya ay
umalis kami agad-agad kapag tinanggap namin ang
Php20,000.00. Kaming mga tenants niya ay nagkaisang hindi
tumanggap ng nasabing halaga dahil ang nais lang namin ay
maging makatao siya sa amin at bigyan niya kami ng sapat na
panahon hanggat wala pa kaming malilipatan.”

14. That Defendants were not properly informed of the

demand by the Plaintiff for them to immediately vacate said
property as they did not receive any FINAL NOTICE OF DEMAND;

15. The Defendants were shocked when plaintiff brought the

matter to the Barangay demanding that they immediately vacate
the property even though they were religiously paying for their
rents.

16. The Defendants upon learning of the demand of the

Plaintiff are now requesting her for a special conference to
discuss a serious extrajudicial compromise, without admission of
guilt of the part of the Defendants. The Defendants as a lessee
of the Plaintiff’s property is acceding to vacate the subject
property. The Defendants manifests that they be given an ample
period of time to look for a place for their relocation and that the
amount of payment for their voluntary eviction be increase.
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of

the Honourable Court that the parties be given ample time to reach an
amicable settlement before the Manila City Mediation Center; and that in
case of a failure thereof, and after trial, the complaint be DISMISSED for
lack of merit for lack of notice of demand.

The Defendants respectfully prays for such and other reliefs as may be
deemed just and equitable in the premises.

City of Manila, October 6, 2022.

FLORENCIO T. MAQUIDDANG and ANA MARIA MAQUIDDANG

Defendants
Address: No. 262 Dayao Street,
Tondo, Manila

Copy furnished: (by registered mail due to time constraints):

ROSALINDA A. ARIAS
Plaintiff
2308-G Mindanao Avenmue
corner Bataan Street, Balic-Balic,
Sampaloc, Manila 1008

MANUEL ANGELO B. VENTURA III

CRISELDA MARIE G. ESGUERRA
HAZEL B FOSTER-VELASQUEZ
c/o MANUEL VENTURA & PARTNERS (MVP LAW)
Counsel for the Plaintiff
Units 303A & 303B Fil Garcia Tower Kalayaan Avenue
corner Mayaman Street, Quezon City 1101
 V E R I F I C A T I O N

WE, FLORENCIO T. MAQUIDDANG and ANA MARIA

MAQUIDDANG, of legal age, Filipino, with postal address at No. 262
Dayao Street, Tondo, Manila, after being duly sworn in accordance with
law, hereby depose and state:

1. That WE are the defendants in the foregoing case;

2. That WE caused the preparation of the foregoing Answer;
3. That We have read and fully understood the said Answer; and
4. All the contents therein are true and correct of our own direct,
personal knowledge.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, We have hereunto affixed our respective

signatures this ____ day of October 2022, Manila.

FLORENCIO T. MAQUIDDANG and ANA MARIA MAQUIDDANG

Defendants

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ___ day of October,

2022 at Manila.

Affiants exhibited to me their respective Community Tax

Certificate No. and/or Goverment Issued ID No. Issued at/on
FLORENCIO T. MAQUIDDANG _______________ _____________
ANA MARIA MAQUIDDANG__________________ _____________
that they are the same person who personally signed before me the
foregoing verification and acknowledged that they voluntarily executed the
same.

WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL this ___th day of October 2022 at

the City of Manila.
NOTARY PUBLIC
Doc. No. __________
Page No. __________
Book No. __________
Series of 2022